Adam Nagourney had a front-page article in the New York Times earlier this week that got some buzz in the blogosphere, but since I didn’t get to reading it until today (the dead-tree copy was sitting on the kitchen table at my Dad’s place in Colorado). His article on the changing demographics of California’s reliably Republican Orange County offered not just a window into the anti-Republican slant of Times‘ reporters, but also into their willingness to spin demographic trends to fulfill their wishes of a declining GOP.
Now, let’s look at the chart he uses:
Notice something? I thought you did. While the Times‘ editors dub the county a “little less red,” it’s also a little less blue. Until their recent uptick, Democrats were also on the decline in the Southern California county. Independents have surged (which, to be sure, Nagourney observed, noting that this follows a pattern “in much of the state.”
Seems people have lost faith in both parties. (more…)
Last night, I had a choice, try to see if I could find the Fiorina-Boxer debate on a cable channel in Colorado or go out to dinner with my Dad for his birthday. And much as I wanted to see Carly take the career politician to the cleaners (as I understand she did), this choice was easy. Sorry, Carly, family first.
Well, it looks like my gal’s supporters in the San Fernando Valley didn’t have similar conflicts; they were a bit significantly more enthusiastic than those backing the three-term incumbent:
Seeking her fourth term, Boxer holds a substantial fundraising advantage over her challenger, but is still seen as facing a tough battle because the economy has left voters in an anti-incumbent mood.
The crowd at the Valley Democratic viewing party was obviously partisan, but its numbers – perhaps three dozen when the debate began – paled in comparison to the 200 or so who gathered at the local Republican bash held at Galpin Ford in North Hills.
WIth that fundraising advantage, Mrs. Boxer is sure to try to deflect attention away from her lackluster record in the Senate and the dismal state of the economy in the (once-)Golden State despite her promises of a speedy recovery once Congress passed the big-spending initiatives she supported.
Clearly, the Democrat wants to make the campaign turn on her opponent’s flaws and not on her own failures.
Maybe that’s why she’s so reluctant to face Carly in further debates.
If a gunman took hostages and once claimed he had “experienced an ‘’awakening’ when he watched” Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly’s shows, you can bet the headlines would label him a right-wing kook while left-of-center pundits would deplore the “extremist, eliminationist rhetoric” spewing forth from conservative media.
But, James J. Lee, the late gunman who took hostages yesterday at the Discovery Communications Building only said he he experienced his ‘”‘awakening’ when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.’” So, that means, he was just a lone nut and Gore’s “documentary” had nothing to do with the acting out of his violent tendencies.
I highly doubt the MSM will mete out the same treatment to Mr. Gore they offered to “Ground Zero” Mosque Opponents.
Here, I’m with Allahpundit who’s
. . . not going to blame the actions of a nut on all lefties and environmentalists. I will, however, be sure to remind them of this the next time they pull that on the right. Which they do, merrily, at every conceivable opportunity.
Indeed, I offered a similar “reminder” when I posted earlier this week on the murder of the Mormon bishop in California. They blame every crime against a member of an approved American victim group on conservatives, but when leftists commit such crime (or the victim is a member of a non-approved group), it never occurs to them that, using their very logic, liberals groups in general and leftist rabble rousers in particular should thus be held responsible.
No, Al Gore is not responsible for the actions of this disturbed man. But, neither are conservatives responsible for the attack last week on the NYC cabbie.